Banksy Artwork Sells for £1 Million then shreds itself

I showed this to my sister, who is an artist (painter and photographer) and she said this is a perfect example of ephemeral art, the kind of art a street artist like Banksy is supposed to do.

originally posted by: Moohide
I really think this is a fake story. No video of the shredding painting, no real bidder, no money, just a promo to keep Banksy's name in the news and value and relevance to his works.

No video of the shredding is normal, as I don't see any reason for people to be filming an auction where nothing special was expected.
It's also normal for art bidders to be anonymous, specially when they buy art pieces that are relatively famous.
As for the value of Banksy's art, it's possible that he made it with that intention, but I don't see any problem with that.

Perfect symbol for our greedy and corrupt world.

Anyway, If it really did shred (might be just an illusion) then he destroyed some one's property since it was sold. Hope the buyer has a sense of humor.

He's worth $50 million, he can just give him/her back their money.

originally posted by: InTheLight
He's worth $50 million, he can just give him/her back their money.

If asked then we will see if he does.

Of course, the buyer could have been in on the what was going to happen.

originally posted by: roadgravel

originally posted by: InTheLight
He's worth $50 million, he can just give him/her back their money.

If asked then we will see if he does.

Of course, the buyer could have been in on the what was going to happen.

Alternatively, the artist could simply make another one to the buyer's specifications...meaning, minus the shredding part.

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: roadgravel

originally posted by: InTheLight
He's worth $50 million, he can just give him/her back their money.

If asked then we will see if he does.

Of course, the buyer could have been in on the what was going to happen.

Alternatively, the artist could simply make another one to the buyer's specifications...meaning, minus the shredding part.

I would think it would have less value but who knows how these art people think.

originally posted by: roadgravel

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: roadgravel

originally posted by: InTheLight
He's worth $50 million, he can just give him/her back their money.

If asked then we will see if he does.

Of course, the buyer could have been in on the what was going to happen.

Alternatively, the artist could simply make another one to the buyer's specifications...meaning, minus the shredding part.

I would think it would have less value but who knows how these art people think.

Yes, we are a peculiar sort, daring to step outside the lined box.

Its dumb to pay a million dollars on a damn picture in the first place.

originally posted by: SoulStoner225
Its dumb to pay a million dollars on a damn picture in the first place.

Not if your bank account is in the multi-millions and this type of artwork only increases in value.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: gortex

His point insulted thousands of struggling artists.

Use to be they had to be dead for centuries before their paintings ever made a dime.

How about Andy Warhol's piss art where he and his studio team would piss on metal plats? They go for millions now...

originally posted by: ArMaP
I showed this to my sister, who is an artist (painter and photographer) and she said this is a perfect example of ephemeral art, the kind of art a street artist like Banksy is supposed to do.

Ummm...Eff a mural...art...?

Your sister could be on to something there...





YouSir

Now i am wondering if the buyer was Bansky himself? lol

a reply to: gortex

Hilarious! LMFAO!

And yes, the partially shredded image just added value.

If the 'Fountain' by 'R. Mutt' had flushed the artist's urine out of itself at auction, that would have made it more valuable also -- and perhaps derailed Andres Serrano's career before it even got started.

So how was the shredder powered?

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance
So how was the shredder powered?

Probably batteries, they were invented a long time ago.

originally posted by: roadgravel
Anyway, If it really did shred (might be just an illusion) then he destroyed some one's property since it was sold. Hope the buyer has a sense of humor.

It looks like the lower half was really shredded.

To me, if I was the buyer, I wouldn't mind, as I would own the only (as far as I know) art work that changed itself after being bought. Many people agree that the work now has an even bigger value, as it stopped being a common painting to become the first of its kind.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: roadgravel
Anyway, If it really did shred (might be just an illusion) then he destroyed some one's property since it was sold. Hope the buyer has a sense of humor.

It looks like the lower half was really shredded.

To me, if I was the buyer, I wouldn't mind, as I would own the only (as far as I know) art work that changed itself after being bought. Many people agree that the work now has an even bigger value, as it stopped being a common painting to become the first of its kind.

If it does happen then bonus. Human emotions make it likely, for at least a while.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance
So how was the shredder powered?

Probably batteries, they were invented a long time ago.

After a quick look online, most battery operated shredders with an opening wide enough for that picture run off of 4-6 AAs. Whatever receiver activated the shredder would have also needed it's own power source. The combined weight of the shredding mechanism, the logic board(s) and the batteries would have been relatively significant, in relation the weight of the frame, I'd imagine (and probably would have made it pretty bottom-heavy). Also, judging by the resulting photo, the bottom of the frame would have to be open at least enough to expose the underside of the shredder.

I just find it hard to believe nobody noticed that.

Usually I agree with you but in this case I don’t other struggling artist are not his problem.
This guy knows what he is doing and he does it well.

a reply to: neo96